About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
challenges of the defense budget because this program is in some way singular some way singular in terms of its cost overrides, its delays and the way it's been structured to as i write in the peace it's most effective defense of attribute may not be all of its radars and sensors and missiles and stealth technology and ability to fly it synthesized speech. it might well be the way it was designed to avoid budget cutters in washington. >> now a hearing on the justice department's 2014 budget request. attorney general eric holder testified before how supra-patient subcommittee for a little more than two hours. be attorney general holder we welcome you to the committee and thank you for appearing. i'm going to hold my questions until the very end because members have to catch planes and go out of town but i will have an opening statement to cover questions and concerns that i have. let me address the bombing attack at the boston marathon on monday. we know the fbi and the joint terrorist task force batf and its forensic specialists in all the federal state and local authorities are working
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange -- in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me even though we are being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all is that an accurate statement? if so, explain that if you would. >> no. not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. there was reporting to that effect. what i -- there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i'll say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not that same level of deployment is necessary. all i stated was a sort of fact based on the rationale of the deployment itself. >> do you think that the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time every year? >> no. >> all right. thank you for tho
defense ministers have already begun consideration of the size and mission for a post-2014 force in afghanistan. one factor that will influence that decision is the size and capacity of the afghan security forces. in this regard, the recent decision by nato defense ministers to support maintaining the afghan security forces at the current 352,000 through 2018, rather than reducing the support to a level of 230,000, as previously planned, is the right thing to do. it sends an important signal of our continued commitment to a safe and secure afghanistan and make it feasible for us to have a smaller u.s. and coalition presence after 2014. the greatest challenge to afghanistan's security is not the taliban, but the pakistan- based sanctuaries for militant extremists, launching cross border attacks into afghanistan. pakistan has said it supports a stable and secure afghanistan. but its actions belie its words. the u.s.-pakistan relationship will not be normalized so long as those extremists safe havens exist on pakistani territory. another large challenge to a stable afghanistan is th
disarmament. the reaganites in the defense department were horrified by this and put a stop to it but reagan didn't go all the way with reaganism when he had a chance to end the cold war, especially the nuclear threats. so it's a hard-core republican belief. if you remember the pup pup prime -- republican primaries of 2012, it was not that long ago there were eight or ten republican candidates in simi valley for a debate at the reagan library and every one of them said reagan set the example how maring be strong, reagan did with the soviet union and we should do it today in iran, we should do it -- we were right toy trite in iraq. america should use its power to achieve its spend destroy its enemies. i worked in the cold war and in the middle east. you have 29% of the american people agree with that today. >> richard, do you want to say something? you're leaning forward. >> no. >> okay. we want to take questions from the audience if anybody has a question, and i think there's a microphone somewhere that someone is going to bring up. why don't we start right up here on the aisle, blue shirt.
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8